On Jan 8, 2008 6:19 AM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
<snip>
Forgive me if some of this is retreading old ground, but I've over 50
messages for this list since yesterday. Can we have a rerun (or a January run) of the top poster stats? I was 2nd last time and felt embarrassed despite having thought most of what I wrote was close to the topic in question.
Posts in December to Foundation-l
1 Thomas Dalton - 123 2 Anthony - 70 3 Andrew Whitworth - 64 4 David Gerard - 48 5 Florence Devouard - 47 6 Brian McNeil - 43 7 Nathan Awrich - 36 8 Ray Saintonge - 33 T9 GerardM - 32 T9 Mike Godwin - 32 T9 Erik Moeller - 32
-Robert Rohde
Posts in December to Foundation-l
1 Thomas Dalton - 123 2 Anthony - 70 3 Andrew Whitworth - 64 4 David Gerard - 48 5 Florence Devouard - 47 6 Brian McNeil - 43 7 Nathan Awrich - 36 8 Ray Saintonge - 33 T9 GerardM - 32 T9 Mike Godwin - 32 T9 Erik Moeller - 32
Ouch! I think that is heavily skewed by one topic, though. Do you have the total number of posts? Would be interesting to see it as a percentage.
I think one reason I sent so many emails (other than just saying a lot, of course), is that when I'm replying to 3 people I'll send 3 emails. I've seen that other people prefer to do compilation emails replying to everyone at once. Should I switch to doing that?
On Jan 8, 2008 9:29 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Posts in December to Foundation-l
1 Thomas Dalton - 123 2 Anthony - 70 3 Andrew Whitworth - 64 4 David Gerard - 48 5 Florence Devouard - 47 6 Brian McNeil - 43 7 Nathan Awrich - 36 8 Ray Saintonge - 33 T9 GerardM - 32 T9 Mike Godwin - 32 T9 Erik Moeller - 32
Ouch! I think that is heavily skewed by one topic, though. Do you have the total number of posts? Would be interesting to see it as a percentage.
1258 total posts by 158 contributors.
-Robert Rohde
Just curious, can you generate the same statistics for all posts to this list (since 2004)?
--User:Meno25
On Jan 8, 2008 7:37 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 8, 2008 9:29 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Posts in December to Foundation-l
1 Thomas Dalton - 123 2 Anthony - 70 3 Andrew Whitworth - 64 4 David Gerard - 48 5 Florence Devouard - 47 6 Brian McNeil - 43 7 Nathan Awrich - 36 8 Ray Saintonge - 33 T9 GerardM - 32 T9 Mike Godwin - 32 T9 Erik Moeller - 32
Ouch! I think that is heavily skewed by one topic, though. Do you have the total number of posts? Would be interesting to see it as a percentage.
1258 total posts by 158 contributors.
-Robert Rohde _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/1/10, Meno 25 meno25wiki@gmail.com:
Just curious, can you generate the same statistics for all posts to this list (since 2004)?
01 Ray Saintonge 1096 02 Anthere 1070 03 Erik Moeller 878 04 David Gerard 798 05 Anthony 620 06 geni 561 07 Thomas Dalton 540 08 Daniel Mayer 526 09 GerardM 485 10 Gregory Maxwell 435 11 Gerard Meijssen 407 12 Florence Devouard 348 13 Angela 345 14 Delirium 325 15 Jimmy Wales 322 16 Robert Scott Horning 309 17 Andre Engels 254 18 James Hare 253 19 Delphine Ménard 252 19 Brion Vibber 252 21 Jeff V. Merkey 249 22 Andrew Gray 244 23 Birgitte SB 233 24 Aphaia 229 25 Jeffrey V. Merkey 222 26 Walter van Kalken 217 27 Anthony DiPierro 212 28 Casey Brown 205 29 Brian McNeil 196 30 daniwo59 at aol.com 194 31 effe iets anders 178 32 Brianna Laugher 178 33 Yann Forget 157 34 Michael Bimmler 154 35 George Herbert 150 35 Michael Snow 150 37 SJ 148 38 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 145 39 Dan Rosenthal 137 40 Oldak Quill 131 41 Samuel Klein 130 41 Tim Starling 130 41 Mark Williamson 120 44 Sj 114 44 Andrew Whitworth 114 46 Walter Vermeir 111 46 Cormac Lawler 111 46 Milos Rancic 111 49 Lars Aronsson 109 50 Jean-Baptiste Soufron 104 51 Brad Patrick 103 52 Kelly Martin 100
The code was pretty easy, and if people like this feature, I can make a Toolserver utility for Wikimedia lists basing of that. :)
— Kalan
The code was pretty easy, and if people like this feature, I can make a Toolserver utility for Wikimedia lists basing of that. :)
Is there any way you could merge the counts for people with multiple email addresses? Some way for people to enter addresses into a form to say they are the same person (and some way for others to review it)? For example, the top poster looks like it's actually Anthere, but she posts under both her pseudonym and real name, so Ray ends up being on top.
2008/1/10, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Is there any way you could merge the counts for people with multiple email addresses? Some way for people to enter addresses into a form to say they are the same person (and some way for others to review it)?
Sure, that is quite possible. To prevent abuse, such form may require login and accounts may be restricted, for example, to me and list moderators (or maybe also stewards or even any user in good standing).
By the way, grouping is performed not by email address, but by "real name" setting.
— Kalan
On Jan 9, 2008 8:40 PM, Kalan kalan.001@gmail.com wrote:
2008/1/10, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Is there any way you could merge the counts for people with multiple email addresses? Some way for people to enter addresses into a form to say they are the same person (and some way for others to review it)?
Sure, that is quite possible. To prevent abuse, such form may require login and accounts may be restricted, for example, to me and list moderators (or maybe also stewards or even any user in good standing).
By the way, grouping is performed not by email address, but by "real name" setting.
I might be missing something but wouldn't confirmation emails be easier for this than a set of admins and manual approval? Something like "Thomas Dalton (thomas.dalton at gmail.com) claims that your email address should be grouped together with thomas.dalton at gmail.com Please click here to confirm"
Or is this technically more difficult?
Michael
2008/1/10, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com:
I might be missing something but wouldn't confirmation emails be easier for this than a set of admins and manual approval?
Hmm, maybe. Then, after the tool will be ready, we should post something that recommends that.
Or is this technically more difficult?
It is a little, maybe just because I have no experience with automatic mailing. But it needs to be set up just once, so I don't consider this a bad idea.
— Kalan
Or pointless all around? If we were using it for some reason beyond snickering and ogling and a little bit of "Oh shit I post too much" then making it more technically correct would be key, but...
On Jan 9, 2008 2:47 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008 8:40 PM, Kalan kalan.001@gmail.com wrote:
2008/1/10, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Is there any way you could merge the counts for people with multiple email addresses? Some way for people to enter addresses into a form to say they are the same person (and some way for others to review it)?
Sure, that is quite possible. To prevent abuse, such form may require login and accounts may be restricted, for example, to me and list moderators (or maybe also stewards or even any user in good standing).
By the way, grouping is performed not by email address, but by "real name" setting.
I might be missing something but wouldn't confirmation emails be easier for this than a set of admins and manual approval? Something like "Thomas Dalton (thomas.dalton at gmail.com) claims that your email address should be grouped together with thomas.dalton at gmail.com Please click here to confirm"
Or is this technically more difficult?
Michael
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Same reason I choose not to be on the "List of Wikipedians by edit."
Chad H.
On Jan 9, 2008 2:53 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Or pointless all around? If we were using it for some reason beyond snickering and ogling and a little bit of "Oh shit I post too much" then making it more technically correct would be key, but...
On Jan 9, 2008 2:47 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008 8:40 PM, Kalan kalan.001@gmail.com wrote:
2008/1/10, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Is there any way you could merge the counts for people with multiple email addresses? Some way for people to enter addresses into a form to say they are the same person (and some way for others to review it)?
Sure, that is quite possible. To prevent abuse, such form may require login and accounts may be restricted, for example, to me and list moderators (or maybe also stewards or even any user in good standing).
By the way, grouping is performed not by email address, but by "real name" setting.
I might be missing something but wouldn't confirmation emails be easier for this than a set of admins and manual approval? Something like "Thomas Dalton (thomas.dalton at gmail.com) claims that your email address should be grouped together with thomas.dalton at gmail.com Please click here to confirm"
Or is this technically more difficult?
Michael
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, I am twice on the list. The only thing that I have to say in my "defence" is that I have been posting for a long time now. Appreciating from a numerical point of view who the top poster is, means that you have to calculate the amount of time that is involved. I am sure that both Ray and myself will not be as bad seen in such a light :) NB I enjoy reading Ray :) Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 9, 2008 8:47 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008 8:40 PM, Kalan kalan.001@gmail.com wrote:
2008/1/10, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Is there any way you could merge the counts for people with multiple email addresses? Some way for people to enter addresses into a form to say they are the same person (and some way for others to review it)?
Sure, that is quite possible. To prevent abuse, such form may require login and accounts may be restricted, for example, to me and list moderators (or maybe also stewards or even any user in good standing).
By the way, grouping is performed not by email address, but by "real name" setting.
I might be missing something but wouldn't confirmation emails be easier for this than a set of admins and manual approval? Something like "Thomas Dalton (thomas.dalton at gmail.com) claims that your email address should be grouped together with thomas.dalton at gmail.com Please click here to confirm"
Or is this technically more difficult?
Michael
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
The only thing that I have to say in my "defence" is that I have been posting for a long time now. Appreciating from a numerical point of view who the top poster is, means that you have to calculate the amount of time that is involved.
In studying the figures I noted that seven of them posted in April 2004 when the list started. All seven have posted at least once since the beginning of December 2007. Such dedication needs to be congratulated.
19 on the list had their first post before the end of 2004.
I am sure that both Ray and myself will not be as bad seen in such a light :) NB I enjoy reading Ray :)
Thanks, I often wonder whether anyone reads what I say.
Ec
On 09/01/2008, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
I might be missing something but wouldn't confirmation emails be easier for this than a set of admins and manual approval? Something like "Thomas Dalton (thomas.dalton at gmail.com) claims that your email address should be grouped together with thomas.dalton at gmail.com Please click here to confirm" Or is this technically more difficult?
This is just numbers for our amusement to show who has a lot to say (for whatever reason), not something that warrants any interference with how things work whatsoever. A simple post-counter, which lets you tell it when two From: lines are one person, is all such a creature would warrant.
- d.
On Jan 9, 2008 9:24 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/01/2008, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
I might be missing something but wouldn't confirmation emails be easier for this than a set of admins and manual approval? Something like "Thomas Dalton (thomas.dalton at gmail.com) claims that your email address should be grouped together with thomas.dalton at gmail.com Please click here to confirm" Or is this technically more difficult?
This is just numbers for our amusement to show who has a lot to say (for whatever reason), not something that warrants any interference with how things work whatsoever. A simple post-counter, which lets you tell it when two From: lines are one person, is all such a creature would warrant.
Ahem... I will now point to the fact that I used conjunctive and was thus only making theoretical suggestions etc.etc. No, seriously, I completely agree, it is too much of an effort for the top poster list. <listmoderator-hat-on> This still means that the 15posts-a-day-average-people might want to blush now </>
Michael
Why don't we all just use the fabulous existing statistics (that you probably didn't know existed :-P) at http://infodisiac.com/?
These are by Erik Zachte, are updated every evening, and have a very wide variety of tables, for example: * Most posts on all WM mailing lists: http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/_PowerPosters.html * This list: http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/foundation-l.html
Interesting that it confirms that Board participation in this list is down considerably in both relative and absolute terms. What was it that caused the huge spike in everything in Dec '06?
Looks like there are at least a few lists that could be deleted for lack of participation, but I had no idea there was so damn many!
Nathan
2008/1/9, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
Interesting that it confirms that Board participation in this list is down considerably in both relative and absolute terms. What was it that caused the huge spike in everything in Dec '06?
Looking at the archives, I see 2 or 3 very large subjects that month: * English Wikipedia policy to forbid non-latin-1 usernames, and the consequences it could have under SUL * The then-current fundraiser and the mention of the Virgin matching donation being perceived as an ad
January update anyone?
On Jan 9, 2008 7:57 PM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2008/1/9, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
Interesting that it confirms that Board participation in this list is down considerably in both relative and absolute terms. What was it that caused the huge spike in everything in Dec '06?
Looking at the archives, I see 2 or 3 very large subjects that month:
- English Wikipedia policy to forbid non-latin-1 usernames, and the
consequences it could have under SUL
- The then-current fundraiser and the mention of the Virgin matching
donation being perceived as an ad
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/foundation-l.html ?
On Feb 6, 2008 4:35 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
January update anyone?
On Jan 9, 2008 7:57 PM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2008/1/9, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
Interesting that it confirms that Board participation in this list is down considerably in both relative and absolute terms. What was it that caused the huge spike in everything in Dec '06?
Looking at the archives, I see 2 or 3 very large subjects that month:
- English Wikipedia policy to forbid non-latin-1 usernames, and the
consequences it could have under SUL
- The then-current fundraiser and the mention of the Virgin matching
donation being perceived as an ad
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Posts = or > 20
GerardM 117 Thomas Dalton 117 David Gerard 81 Nathan 64 Chad 55 Gregory Maxwell 53 Ray Saintonge 48 Andrew Whitworth 39 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 38 Dan Rosenthal 37 Anthere 36 Danny 35 Brianna Laugher 23 Erik Moeller 22 Yaroslav M Blanter 22 Mark Williamson 21 Robert Rohde 21 Anthony 20 Andrew Gray 20 Michael Bimmler 20 Casey Brown 20
On 06/02/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Posts = or > 20
GerardM 117 Thomas Dalton 117
Oooo, close fought race this month!
Top posters for February:
Thomas Dalton 46 Anthere 33 David Gerard 31 Dan Rosenthal 30 Chad 30 Ray Saintonge 26 daniwo59 at aol.com 26 Andrew Whitworth 26 Brian McNeil 24 GerardM 19 geni 18 effe iets anders 16 Mark Williamson 16 Casey Brown 13 Nathan 11 ~Nathan
I knew I'd be up in there at some point ;)
-Dan On Mar 1, 2008, at 9:53 PM, Nathan wrote:
Top posters for February:
Thomas Dalton 46 Anthere 33 David Gerard 31 Dan Rosenthal 30 Chad 30 Ray Saintonge 26 daniwo59 at aol.com 26 Andrew Whitworth 26 Brian McNeil 24 GerardM 19 geni 18 effe iets anders 16 Mark Williamson 16 Casey Brown 13 Nathan 11 ~Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
i'm just disappointed i didn't even place. can i get a consolation prize? speaking from experience, whoever is at the top (i dont recall), theyre basically tellingyou to turn it down a little or face moderationbut as politely as psosible.
On 01/03/2008, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
I knew I'd be up in there at some point ;)
-Dan On Mar 1, 2008, at 9:53 PM, Nathan wrote:
Top posters for February:
Thomas Dalton 46 Anthere 33 David Gerard 31 Dan Rosenthal 30 Chad 30 Ray Saintonge 26 daniwo59 at aol.com 26 Andrew Whitworth 26 Brian McNeil 24 GerardM 19 geni 18 effe iets anders 16 Mark Williamson 16 Casey Brown 13 Nathan 11 ~Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Mark Williamson wrote:
i'm just disappointed i didn't even place. can i get a consolation prize? speaking from experience, whoever is at the top (i dont recall), theyre basically tellingyou to turn it down a little or face moderationbut as politely as psosible.
?? But you're in there with 16.
I see that my total has dropped. I engaged in a positive but easy act of self-discipline. Whenever I disagree with one of Thomas' posts I ask myself, "Do I really need to answer this?" It works wonders.
Ec
On 01/03/2008, Dan Rosenthal wrote
I knew I'd be up in there at some point ;)
-Dan On Mar 1, 2008, at 9:53 PM, Nathan wrote:
Top posters for February:
Thomas Dalton 46 Anthere 33 David Gerard 31 Dan Rosenthal 30 Chad 30 Ray Saintonge 26 daniwo59 at aol.com 26 Andrew Whitworth 26 Brian McNeil 24 GerardM 19 geni 18 effe iets anders 16 Mark Williamson 16 Casey Brown 13 Nathan 11 ~Nathan
On 02/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
i'm just disappointed i didn't even place. can i get a consolation prize? speaking from experience, whoever is at the top (i dont recall), theyre basically tellingyou to turn it down a little or face moderationbut as politely as psosible.
?? But you're in there with 16.
"place" means top 3 - horse racing term. (Don't kill me, I can't help myself! ;))
I see that my total has dropped. I engaged in a positive but easy act of self-discipline. Whenever I disagree with one of Thomas' posts I ask myself, "Do I really need to answer this?" It works wonders.
I ask myself "Is my answer at all useful?", which is "yes" rather more often than your question, so might explain the larger number of emails. I do often realise that it's "no" halfway through writing a reply and discard it, or discard it while proof reading - the 46 I clicked "send" on were the best 46 out of quite a few more, so count yourselves lucky! ;)
Hoi, If I killed you, there would be two spots open for this race :) the question is would it make the list more functional? Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
i'm just disappointed i didn't even place. can i get a consolation prize? speaking from experience, whoever is at the top (i dont recall), theyre basically tellingyou to turn it down a little or face moderationbut as politely as psosible.
?? But you're in there with 16.
"place" means top 3 - horse racing term. (Don't kill me, I can't help myself! ;))
I see that my total has dropped. I engaged in a positive but easy act of self-discipline. Whenever I disagree with one of Thomas' posts I
ask
myself, "Do I really need to answer this?" It works wonders.
I ask myself "Is my answer at all useful?", which is "yes" rather more often than your question, so might explain the larger number of emails. I do often realise that it's "no" halfway through writing a reply and discard it, or discard it while proof reading - the 46 I clicked "send" on were the best 46 out of quite a few more, so count yourselves lucky! ;)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Here are the top posters for March. Thomas Dalton takes the "win" again.
Thomas Dalton 86 Ray Saintonge 81 Geoffrey Plourde 78 GerardM 75 David Gerard 75 Dan Rosenthal 64 Anthere 60 Andrew Whitworth 60 Nathan 52 Brian 48 Chad 40 Mark Williamson 36 effe iets anders 34 Robert Rohde 33 White Cat 33 Birgitte SB 31 Delirium 26 Milos Rancic 26 Yaroslav M. Blanter 23 Ziko van Dijk 23 Screamer 23 Brian McNeil 22 Mike Godwin 21 Erik Moeller 18 geni 18
After last month's top-posters list was released, I sent the following e-mail to Michael and Adhair, our moderators of the list. I wasn't even given a reply, so I thought asking this publicly might spark some discussion as to why exactly this thread on "top posters" continues to exist.
from Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com to mbimmler@gmail.com, adhair@gmail.com, date Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 10:42 PM subject Fwd: [Foundation-l] Top posters
Question:
Given the recent increase in moderation on this list (which I have to applaud, thank you), might I suggest this be added to the killfile? It does nothing to promote discussion and effectively makes posting into a pissing contest. Thanks.
-Chad H.
Thanks for any comments anyone can put in.
-Chad
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Here are the top posters for March. Thomas Dalton takes the "win" again.
Thomas Dalton 86 Ray Saintonge 81 Geoffrey Plourde 78 GerardM 75 David Gerard 75 Dan Rosenthal 64 Anthere 60 Andrew Whitworth 60 Nathan 52 Brian 48 Chad 40 Mark Williamson 36 effe iets anders 34 Robert Rohde 33 White Cat 33 Birgitte SB 31 Delirium 26 Milos Rancic 26 Yaroslav M. Blanter 23 Ziko van Dijk 23 Screamer 23 Brian McNeil 22 Mike Godwin 21 Erik Moeller 18 geni 18
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 03/04/2008, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
After last month's top-posters list was released, I sent the following e-mail to Michael and Adhair, our moderators of the list. I wasn't even given a reply, so I thought asking this publicly might spark some discussion as to why exactly this thread on "top posters" continues to exist.
from Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com to mbimmler@gmail.com, adhair@gmail.com, date Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 10:42 PM subject Fwd: [Foundation-l] Top posters
Question:
Given the recent increase in moderation on this list (which I have to applaud, thank you), might I suggest this be added to the killfile? It does nothing to promote discussion and effectively makes posting into a pissing contest. Thanks.
-Chad H.
Thanks for any comments anyone can put in.
-Chad
Some people happen to find it interesting.
I don't post it as a pissing contest - rather the opposite, really. My view of its original intention was to embarrass the people who posted too much (myself included) in the context of the discussions we were having about high volume posting and its effect on conversation. I've used it as incentive, personally, to reduce the number of my posts and make each one more meaningful when I can.
Nathan
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 03/04/2008, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
After last month's top-posters list was released, I sent the following e-mail to Michael and Adhair, our moderators of the list. I wasn't even given a reply, so I thought asking this publicly might spark some discussion as to why exactly this thread on "top posters" continues to exist.
from Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com to mbimmler@gmail.com, adhair@gmail.com, date Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 10:42 PM subject Fwd: [Foundation-l] Top posters
Question:
Given the recent increase in moderation on this list (which I have to applaud, thank you), might I suggest this be added to the killfile? It does nothing to promote discussion and effectively makes posting into a pissing contest. Thanks.
-Chad H.
Thanks for any comments anyone can put in.
-Chad
Some people happen to find it interesting.
-- Alex (Majorly)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
After last month's top-posters list was released, I sent the following e-mail to Michael and Adhair, our moderators of the list. I wasn't even given a reply, so I thought asking this publicly might spark some discussion as to why exactly this thread on "top posters" continues to exist.
This was one of a great many e-mails I received suggesting that this or that thread be killfiled, and to be frank, I ignored them all. It definitely wasn't personal.
As for posting post counts, I honestly don't consider it disruptive. Personally, I kind of like it—seriously, guys, do you have to weigh in on every thread? I'm not saying your posts have negative value—in fact, they're often insightful—but they'd count for a lot more if you only posted when you had something really good to say.
Austin
from Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com to mbimmler@gmail.com, adhair@gmail.com, date Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 10:42 PM subject Fwd: [Foundation-l] Top posters
Question:
Given the recent increase in moderation on this list (which I have to applaud, thank you), might I suggest this be added to the killfile? It does nothing to promote discussion and effectively makes posting into a pissing contest. Thanks.
-Chad H.
Thanks for any comments anyone can put in.
-Chad
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Here are the top posters for March. Thomas Dalton takes the "win" again.
Thomas Dalton 86 Ray Saintonge 81 Geoffrey Plourde 78 GerardM 75 David Gerard 75 Dan Rosenthal 64 Anthere 60 Andrew Whitworth 60 Nathan 52 Brian 48 Chad 40 Mark Williamson 36 effe iets anders 34 Robert Rohde 33 White Cat 33 Birgitte SB 31 Delirium 26 Milos Rancic 26 Yaroslav M. Blanter 23 Ziko van Dijk 23 Screamer 23 Brian McNeil 22 Mike Godwin 21 Erik Moeller 18 geni 18
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Thank you Austin for your answer as to why I got no reply. I didn't figure it was personal, I just was curious as to why there wasn't even so much as a "thanks for the idea, but no."
Makes a little more sense now.
-Chad
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
After last month's top-posters list was released, I sent the following e-mail to Michael and Adhair, our moderators of the list. I wasn't even given a reply, so I thought asking this publicly might spark some discussion as to why exactly this thread on "top posters" continues to exist.
This was one of a great many e-mails I received suggesting that this or that thread be killfiled, and to be frank, I ignored them all. It definitely wasn't personal.
As for posting post counts, I honestly don't consider it disruptive. Personally, I kind of like it—seriously, guys, do you have to weigh in on every thread? I'm not saying your posts have negative value—in fact, they're often insightful—but they'd count for a lot more if you only posted when you had something really good to say.
Austin
from Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com to mbimmler@gmail.com, adhair@gmail.com, date Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 10:42 PM subject Fwd: [Foundation-l] Top posters
Question:
Given the recent increase in moderation on this list (which I have to applaud, thank you), might I suggest this be added to the killfile? It does nothing to promote discussion and effectively makes posting into a pissing contest. Thanks.
-Chad H.
Thanks for any comments anyone can put in.
-Chad
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Here are the top posters for March. Thomas Dalton takes the "win" again.
Thomas Dalton 86 Ray Saintonge 81 Geoffrey Plourde 78 GerardM 75 David Gerard 75 Dan Rosenthal 64 Anthere 60 Andrew Whitworth 60 Nathan 52 Brian 48 Chad 40 Mark Williamson 36 effe iets anders 34 Robert Rohde 33 White Cat 33 Birgitte SB 31 Delirium 26 Milos Rancic 26 Yaroslav M. Blanter 23 Ziko van Dijk 23 Screamer 23 Brian McNeil 22 Mike Godwin 21 Erik Moeller 18 geni 18
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
For April:
GerardM 117 Milos Rancic 80 Mark Williamson 76 Ray Saintonge 64 David Gerard 61 Thomas Dalton 60 Dan Rosenthal 53 Geoffrey Plourde 52 Anthere 51 Chad 49 Mike Godwin 39 Anthony 38 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 37 Andrew Whitworth 36 Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) 35 Michael Snow 31 effe iets anders 29 Brian McNeil 28 Erik Moeller 28 Pharos 28 ~Nathan
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
For April:
GerardM 117 Milos Rancic 80 Mark Williamson 76 Ray Saintonge 64 David Gerard 61 Thomas Dalton 60 Dan Rosenthal 53 Geoffrey Plourde 52 Anthere 51 Chad 49 Mike Godwin 39 Anthony 38 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 37 Andrew Whitworth 36 Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) 35 Michael Snow 31 effe iets anders 29 Brian McNeil 28 Erik Moeller 28 Pharos 28 ~Nathan
Woohoo, back on the list again!
Anthony wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
For April:
GerardM 117 Milos Rancic 80 Mark Williamson 76 Ray Saintonge 64 David Gerard 61 Thomas Dalton 60 Dan Rosenthal 53 Geoffrey Plourde 52 Anthere 51 Chad 49 Mike Godwin 39 Anthony 38 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 37 Andrew Whitworth 36 Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) 35 Michael Snow 31 effe iets anders 29 Brian McNeil 28 Erik Moeller 28 Pharos 28 ~Nathan
Woohoo, back on the list again!
Ditto. I trail you by oen posting. I take some pride from the fact that I only make the list when there is something fairly significant happening in Wikimedia.
Yours;
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
I think I only make the list when there is something languagey happening. When I first made #1 was during the prolonged arguments about Chinese (first, Traditional and Simplified; later, having a separate WP for Cantonese)
Mark
2008/5/2 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
Anthony wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
For April:
GerardM 117 Milos Rancic 80 Mark Williamson 76 Ray Saintonge 64 David Gerard 61 Thomas Dalton 60 Dan Rosenthal 53 Geoffrey Plourde 52 Anthere 51 Chad 49 Mike Godwin 39 Anthony 38 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 37 Andrew Whitworth 36 Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) 35 Michael Snow 31 effe iets anders 29 Brian McNeil 28 Erik Moeller 28 Pharos 28 ~Nathan
Woohoo, back on the list again!
Ditto. I trail you by oen posting. I take some pride from the fact that I only make the list when there is something fairly significant happening in Wikimedia.
Yours;
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) 35
How was this list of top-posters compiled? I skimmed through my emails to Foundation-l, and found a total of 2 top-posted emails in 2008. I normally use bottom-posting, with the rare inline replying.
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) 35
How was this list of top-posters compiled? I skimmed through my emails to Foundation-l, and found a total of 2 top-posted emails in 2008. I normally use bottom-posting, with the rare inline replying.
Heh. It doesn't mean "people who top-posted", it means "people who posted the most times to the list". :-)
Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) wrote:
Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) 35
How was this list of top-posters compiled? I skimmed through my emails to Foundation-l, and found a total of 2 top-posted emails in 2008. I normally use bottom-posting, with the rare inline replying.
Lol. That's a confusion between "posting on top of the previous message" and the privilege of being recognized for "posting a lot".
Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
That's a confusion between "posting on top of the previous message" and the privilege of being recognized for "posting a lot".
Oops, I confused this thread with Delphine's "[OT] Top posting" thread. :)
For May 08,
Milos Rancic 59 Anthony 56 Ray Saintonge 47 Thomas Dalton 47 White Cat 46 GerardM 39 effe iets anders 39 Geoffrey Plourde 36 Mike Godwin 34 Anthere 32 Dan Rosenthal 31 Birgitte SB 29 Mark Williamson 27 Jesse Plamondon-Willard 27 Pharos 25 David Gerard 23 Chad 23 Casey Brown 21 Michael Bimmler 20 Nathan 18
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Milos Rancic 59 Anthony 56 Ray Saintonge 47 Thomas Dalton 47 White Cat 46 GerardM 39 effe iets anders 39 Geoffrey Plourde 36 Mike Godwin 34 Anthere 32 Dan Rosenthal 31 Birgitte SB 29 Mark Williamson 27 Jesse Plamondon-Willard 27 Pharos 25 David Gerard 23 Chad 23 Casey Brown 21 Michael Bimmler 20 Nathan 18
Wow, I am the first :) And I don't think that I raise the number of my emails... Oh, I see. Competition is not so strong anymore ;) With this amount of emails, I would be seventh for April :)
On 02/06/2008, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Milos Rancic 59 Anthony 56 Ray Saintonge 47 Thomas Dalton 47 White Cat 46 GerardM 39 effe iets anders 39 Geoffrey Plourde 36 Mike Godwin 34 Anthere 32 Dan Rosenthal 31 Birgitte SB 29 Mark Williamson 27 Jesse Plamondon-Willard 27 Pharos 25 David Gerard 23 Chad 23 Casey Brown 21 Michael Bimmler 20 Nathan 18
Wow, I am the first :) And I don't think that I raise the number of my emails... Oh, I see. Competition is not so strong anymore ;) With this amount of emails, I would be seventh for April :)
I don't remember any major scandals in May - there was nothing much to talk about. There needs to be some disagreement in order to get lots of back-and-forth. Everyone agreeing that we're all very grateful for the excellent job Florence did as board chair doesn't make for a lengthy debate! Now, had she done a bad job, we could have had a brilliant discussion about it. So basically, you should blame Florence! ;)
While that's mildly amusing, I think it is in poor taste.
Were I to choose to highlight something from the stats it would be the participation from board and staff. I see Anthere and Mike Godwin high among the top posters, and for most of May I was able to keep up without ignoring too much stuff. My interpretation of that would be that we saw a far higher signal-to-noise ratio for the month.
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton Sent: 03 June 2008 15:17 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Top posters
On 02/06/2008, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Milos Rancic 59 Anthony 56 Ray Saintonge 47 Thomas Dalton 47 White
Cat
46 GerardM 39 effe iets anders 39 Geoffrey Plourde 36 Mike Godwin
34
Anthere 32 Dan Rosenthal 31 Birgitte SB 29 Mark Williamson 27 Jesse Plamondon-Willard 27 Pharos 25 David Gerard 23 Chad 23 Casey Brown 21 Michael Bimmler 20 Nathan 18
Wow, I am the first :) And I don't think that I raise the number of my emails... Oh, I see. Competition is not so strong anymore ;) With this amount of emails, I would be seventh for April :)
I don't remember any major scandals in May - there was nothing much to talk about. There needs to be some disagreement in order to get lots of back-and-forth. Everyone agreeing that we're all very grateful for the excellent job Florence did as board chair doesn't make for a lengthy debate! Now, had she done a bad job, we could have had a brilliant discussion about it. So basically, you should blame Florence! ;)
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 03/06/2008, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
While that's mildly amusing, I think it is in poor taste.
Really? Well, if anyone (particularly, Florence) was offended by it, I unconditionally apologise, but I really don't see how it's in poor taste.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 03/06/2008, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
While that's mildly amusing, I think it is in poor taste.
Really? Well, if anyone (particularly, Florence) was offended by it, I unconditionally apologise, but I really don't see how it's in poor taste.
No offense taken ;-)
Ant
Name Lifetime
June Ray Saintongehttp://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Ray_Saintonge.html 1952
58 Dan Rosenthalhttp://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Dan_Rosenthal.html 342
46 Milos Rancichttp://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Milos_Rancic.html 363
36 Anthony http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Anthony.html 1292
35 GerardM http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/GerardM.html 1588
35 Thomas Daltonhttp://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Thomas_Dalton.html 834
32 Jesse Plamondon-Willard 57
29 Gregory Maxwellhttp://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Gregory_Maxwell.html 721
26 Mark Williamsonhttp://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Mark_Williamson.html 316
26 Anthere http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Anthere.html 2677
21 John Vandenberg 24
20 Nathan http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Nathan.html 200
20 effe iets andershttp://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/effe_iets_anders.html 381
19 Jon 38
18 geni http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/geni.html 876
17 Andrew Grayhttp://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Andrew_Gray.html 340
16 George Herberthttp://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/George_Herbert.html 222
16 Brian McNeilhttp://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Brian_McNeil.html 314
15 Casey Brownhttp://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Casey_Brown.html 255
15 David Gerardhttp://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/David_Gerard.html 1457
15 Kwan Ting Chan 48
14 Ryan 29
13 Ziko van Dijk 53
13 Durova 46
12 Hopefully this formats correctly. Of 109 posters in June, here are the top 25. I included the lifetime totals this time 'round.
Nathan
You missed Ray's total for this month. Interesting stats and cool link, I thought I posted more than I do.
-Dan
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Name Lifetime
June Ray Saintonge< http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Ray_Saintonge.html%3E 1952
58 Dan Rosenthal< http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Dan_Rosenthal.html%3E 342
46 Milos Rancic< http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Milos_Rancic.html%3E 363
36 Anthony http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Anthony.html 1292
35 GerardM http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/GerardM.html 1588
35 Thomas Dalton< http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Thomas_Dalton.html%3E 834
32 Jesse Plamondon-Willard 57
29 Gregory Maxwell< http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Gregory_Maxwell.html%3E 721
26 Mark Williamson< http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Mark_Williamson.html%3E 316
26 Anthere http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Anthere.html 2677
21 John Vandenberg 24
20 Nathan http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Nathan.html 200
20 effe iets anders< http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/effe_iets_anders.html%3E 381
19 Jon 38
18 geni http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/geni.html 876
17 Andrew Gray< http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Andrew_Gray.html%3E 340
16 George Herbert< http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/George_Herbert.html%3E 222
16 Brian McNeil< http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Brian_McNeil.html%3E 314
15 Casey Brown< http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Casey_Brown.html%3E 255
15 David Gerard< http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/David_Gerard.html%3E 1457
15 Kwan Ting Chan 48
14 Ryan 29
13 Ziko van Dijk 53
13 Durova 46
12 Hopefully this formats correctly. Of 109 posters in June, here are the top 25. I included the lifetime totals this time 'round.
Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/7/4 Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com:
You missed Ray's total for this month. Interesting stats and cool link, I thought I posted more than I do.
No, he didn't, Ray's total is the 58, the formatting is really messed up! Tables don't work well in plain text. I'll give it a go:
Name Lifetime June Ray Saintonge 1952 58 Dan Rosenthal 342 46 Milos Rancic 363 36 Anthony 1292 35 GerardM 1588 35 Thomas Dalton 834 32 Jesse Plamondon-Willard 57 29 Gregory Maxwell 721 26 Mark Williamson 316 26 Anthere 2677 21 John Vandenberg 24 20 Nathan 200 20 effe iets anders 381 19 Jon 38 18 geni 876 17 Andrew Gray 340 16 George Herbert 222 16 Brian McNeil 314 15 Casey Brown 255 15 David Gerard 1457 15 Kwan Ting Chan 48 14 Ryan 29 13 Ziko van Dijk 53 13 Durova 46 12
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 02/06/2008, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Milos Rancic 59 Anthony 56 Ray Saintonge 47 Thomas Dalton 47 White Cat 46 GerardM 39 effe iets anders 39 Geoffrey Plourde 36 Mike Godwin 34 Anthere 32 Dan Rosenthal 31 Birgitte SB 29 Mark Williamson 27 Jesse Plamondon-Willard 27 Pharos 25 David Gerard 23 Chad 23 Casey Brown 21 Michael Bimmler 20 Nathan 18
Wow, I am the first :) And I don't think that I raise the number of my emails... Oh, I see. Competition is not so strong anymore ;) With this amount of emails, I would be seventh for April :)
I don't remember any major scandals in May - there was nothing much to talk about. There needs to be some disagreement in order to get lots of back-and-forth. Everyone agreeing that we're all very grateful for the excellent job Florence did as board chair doesn't make for a lengthy debate! Now, had she done a bad job, we could have had a brilliant discussion about it. So basically, you should blame Florence! ;)
That's if we can consider her interaction with the community blameworthy.
Viewed in that light, is it too self-serving to say that two of us on the top posters list are also current board candidates.
Ray
I don't remember any major scandals in May - there was nothing much to talk about. There needs to be some disagreement in order to get lots of back-and-forth. Everyone agreeing that we're all very grateful for the excellent job Florence did as board chair doesn't make for a lengthy debate! Now, had she done a bad job, we could have had a brilliant discussion about it. So basically, you should blame Florence! ;)
That's if we can consider her interaction with the community blameworthy.
Viewed in that light, is it too self-serving to say that two of us on the top posters list are also current board candidates.
I think there's been some serious misunderstanding of my comment (which I take responsibility for, I thought it was clear what I meant, but obviously I was mistaken). I was just joking. One of the major threads during the month was one where everyone congratulated and thanked Florence for a job well done. This was a fairly short thread, since everyone agreed that she'd done a good job so there was just one email per person and the thread finished. Had Florence been a bad chair, there would have been more disagreement among people commenting prompting more discussion, so there would have been some back-and-forth resulting in a much longer thread. I concluded from that that the lower total activity during the month, and therefore Milos' "winning", was down to Florence doing such a good job as chair, and therefore Milos should blame her for him being top of the list (which is generally considered a bad thing, hence the use of the word "blame").
It was a light hearted comment and I meant no offence to anyone. It was intended to be funny, but I clearly failed rather drastically - you know a joke has failed when you have to explain it. Once again, I apologise to anyone offended by my poor attempt at humour.
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It was a light hearted comment and I meant no offence to anyone. It was intended to be funny, but I clearly failed rather drastically - you know a joke has failed when you have to explain it. Once again, I apologise to anyone offended by my poor attempt at humour.
Well, I understood your comment in the way you made it and as I'm a non-native English speaker, I can't believe that I'm the only one who recognised that you were saying this as a joke...
Maybe we should just all try to assume good faith a bit more often (or else, we get back to use these <irony> </irony> tags)
On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 19:55 +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Maybe we should just all try to assume good faith a bit more often (or else, we get back to use these <irony> </irony> tags)
I put a winking emoticon at the end, I thought that was enough.... You live and learn.
Don't worry too much over it. I think most of us understood what you intended. :)
KTC
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Maybe we should just all try to assume good faith a bit more often (or else, we get back to use these <irony> </irony> tags)
I put a winking emoticon at the end, I thought that was enough.... You live and learn.
Don't worry about it. Most of us did take it that way. Unfortunately, there will always be one or two persons reading things the wrong way. That's always one of the risks when you use humour. Gravity that is not balanced by levity can be a worse alternative.
Ec
On 03/06/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Maybe we should just all try to assume good faith a bit more often (or else, we get back to use these <irony> </irony> tags)
I put a winking emoticon at the end, I thought that was enough.... You live and learn.
Don't worry about it. Most of us did take it that way. Unfortunately, there will always be one or two persons reading things the wrong way. That's always one of the risks when you use humour. Gravity that is not balanced by levity can be a worse alternative.
Hmmm... I had you down as one of the people that misunderstood me. It seems I misunderstood you! This is giving me a headache...
On 02/03/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Top posters for February:
Thomas Dalton 46 Anthere 33 David Gerard 31 Dan Rosenthal 30 Chad 30 Ray Saintonge 26 daniwo59 at aol.com 26 Andrew Whitworth 26 Brian McNeil 24 GerardM 19 geni 18 effe iets anders 16 Mark Williamson 16 Casey Brown 13 Nathan 11 ~Nathan
Will anyone manage to beat Mr. Dalton in March? :-)
There is an interesting flavor to some recent posts that I think derserves to be highlighted. Some comments from other threads below:
--- On Jan 9, 2008 5:52 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
In addition to being financially supported by the public, Wikimedia is able to exist only through the generous contribution of time by tens of thousands of people all over the world.
So, yes, communication is expensive but you are the glass maker complaining about the cost of sand. It's a cost of doing business. --- On Jan 9, 2008 12:57 AM, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
I'm in favor of first promoting transparency through promoting more actual volunteer participation, and secondly, through more systematic & regular reporting. --- Ramir (from ru.WB) writes:
This is comical. An appointed representative (i. e. you) of a corporation (i. e. Wikimedia) is tactlessly suggesting that I (a long-proven, devoted Wiki-education enthusiast with no interest for or against the corporation) am biased. A mongrel mob of clueless, faceless, foreign-speaking door-to-door salesmen have knocked on Russian Wikibooks' door and, without ceremony, are accusing the housekeeper of being "biased" against their T-shirt manufacturing company. Just you all get out of here, pests. Go do some wiki work: moving and deleting, putting templates, voting ¯ you are much better at that than at marketing or any other form of socially constructive work. ---
I want to highlight this:
Greg is telling "foundation" people that they need to be transparent with "wiki" people no matter how expensive because "wiki" is the means of the "foundation". Erik replies that his first method of promoting transparency to these people is to promote more of them to volunteer in these issues rather than just comment. Meanwhile, in the ru.WB thread, a "wiki" person explains why he finds "foundation" people to be pesky salesman that would do better to spend their time on wiki work.
I respect the work done for the foundation and I know the volunteer work done for the foundation is invaluable. However this is not the only "actual volunteer participation" going on in Wikimedia. I do not want to see votes for hiring an accountant. Ever. But the ongoing lack of transparency from the foundation is causing a fracture between people who are in the loop and people who are working the wikis. We need to all be on the same team, if you will excuse my American sports metaphor :) Not disrespecting each others work as unimportant or undeserving.
I am much less plugged in than Greg. I can't see *exactly* what his concerns are, but I feel the deterioration in communication. And I am concerned as well.
Birgitte SB
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Greg is telling "foundation" people that they need to be transparent with "wiki" people no matter how expensive because "wiki" is the means of the "foundation". Erik replies that his first method of promoting transparency to these people is to promote more of them to volunteer in these issues rather than just comment. Meanwhile, in the ru.WB thread, a "wiki" person explains why he finds "foundation" people to be pesky salesman that would do better to spend their time on wiki work.
I wouldn't read too much into the ravings of a rogue admin - I don't think his views are particularly representative of any significant portion of the community.
Thomas, I don't think that was appropriate at all.
On 09/01/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas, I don't think that was appropriate at all.
Which part do you disagree with?
Looks like the part where it was inappropriate. He never said he disagreed. He said it was inappropriate. My rants about George W. Bush may be true, but not appropriate for this list.
-Dan On Jan 9, 2008, at 5:47 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 09/01/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas, I don't think that was appropriate at all.
Which part do you disagree with?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Actually, upon reviewing this for the second time, I think you guys are talking past each other.
It appears that Thomas was referring to the rogue Russian Wikibooks admin. Whereas to Nathan, and at first glance, to me, it appeared you were calling Greg a rogue admin.
It makes MUCH more sense that you're referring to the Russian Wikibooks admin.
-Dan On Jan 9, 2008, at 5:47 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 09/01/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas, I don't think that was appropriate at all.
Which part do you disagree with?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Jan 9, 2008 5:28 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't read too much into the ravings of a rogue admin - I don't think his views are particularly representative of any significant portion of the community.
I would disagree. In general, many members of the sister projects have a strong sense of disconnect and disenfranchisement when it comes to the WMF. This is especially true of the smaller projects and the smaller non-english projects. The lines of communication are virtually non-existant for these small projects. If it appears that the only time the WMF cares about a small project is when something is wrong and "action" needs to be taken. Then, you have all sorts of people descending on your project, trying to make all sorts of decisions on your behalf. en.wikibooks had a big problem with this in the past where wikipedians were trying to influence our deletion discussions en masse, and I know other small projects have similar tales. If this user has some animosity towards the greater WMF community, I have a certain amount of sympathy for him.
Of course, that still doesnt give him the right to ban good-faith users, or make all sorts of unilateral decisions without community discussion, etc. The two issues are basically unrelated.
--Andrew Whitworth
On Jan 9, 2008 3:16 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
I would disagree. In general, many members of the sister projects have a strong sense of disconnect and disenfranchisement when it comes to the WMF. This is especially true of the smaller projects and the smaller non-english projects. The lines of communication are virtually non-existant for these small projects. If it appears that the only time the WMF cares about a small project is when something is wrong and "action" needs to be taken.
<snip>
While it may be worse for small and non-english projects, I think many participants in many of the larger projects also feel disconnected with WMF. Project participants are usually there because they enjoy creating something, but from the point of view of project participants the WMF is almost never directly involved in creating anything. The WMF mostly provides a behind-the-scenes service to keep the servers running, and many people would be perfectly happy if the WMF never, ever got involved in the governance of individual projects. When the WMF does get involved, many participants wonder: "Why are you messing with MY work."
Frankly, the WMF needs better communication all around.
As I write that, it occurs to me that there isn't even a clear point of contact for project participants who want to contact the Foundation with questions or requests. As far as I know, there is no prominent page anywhere that amounts to "Instructions on Contacting the Foundation for Help", so when "Foundation Issues" come up people are mostly left to guess on what to do. Eventually very experienced hands get a sense of when to A) call the office, B) post to foundation-l, C) email Jimbo/Anthere/Brion, etc., but as far as know there isn't any place that actually tries to explain best practices for interacting with the Foundation.
-Robert Rohde
On 10/01/2008, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote: The
WMF mostly provides a behind-the-scenes service to keep the servers running, and many people would be perfectly happy if the WMF never, ever got involved in the governance of individual projects. When the WMF does get involved, many participants wonder: "Why are you messing with MY work."
And yet at the same time, the Foundation is also called upon to intervene in many controversies and issues, sometimes appropriately but often inappropriately. For example I have seen several critics of English Wikipedia culture chastise the Foundation for not acting in some way to improve it, but few Wikimedians would consider that appropriate, I think. Also copyright issues. They are a bit damned if they do and damned if they don't.
BTW I can not think of too many occasions where the Foundation *has* intervened with the governance of individual projects. The only one that comes to mind is the closure of fr.wq and I didn't even see a single person criticise the way that was handled. There was a lot of discussion about the licensing policy but I didn't see anyone suggest that it was inappropriate for the Foundation to do what it did.
As I write that, it occurs to me that there isn't even a clear point of contact for project participants who want to contact the Foundation with questions or requests. As far as I know, there is no prominent page anywhere that amounts to "Instructions on Contacting the Foundation for Help", so when "Foundation Issues" come up people are mostly left to guess on what to do. Eventually very experienced hands get a sense of when to A) call the office, B) post to foundation-l, C) email Jimbo/Anthere/Brion, etc., but as far as know there isn't any place that actually tries to explain best practices for interacting with the Foundation.
I would start with the Volunteer Coordinator http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Volunteer_Coordinator, and as a bonus Cary is as a rule very helpful. :)
regards Brianna
On Jan 10, 2008 11:48 AM, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
As I write that, it occurs to me that there isn't even a clear point of contact for project participants who want to contact the Foundation with questions or requests. As far as I know, there is no prominent page anywhere that amounts to "Instructions on Contacting the Foundation for Help", so when "Foundation Issues" come up people are mostly left to guess on what to do. Eventually very experienced hands get a sense of when to A) call the office, B) post to foundation-l, C) email Jimbo/Anthere/Brion, etc., but as far as know there isn't any place that actually tries to explain best practices for interacting with the Foundation.
In general, if you have not got into an organization, you may miss even the possibility there would be several contact points. If my washing machine broke (and alas it is really broken), I don't try to find who is the best contact, but simply call one sole phone number they provide their customers.
If someone wants to contact WMF, why not they can have such a simple and single contact? Perhaps info-en wouldn't be the best, but it would go someday somewhere. And if it is inappropriate, just give a line on "Project:Contact us"?
I would start with the Volunteer Coordinator http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Volunteer_Coordinator, and as a bonus Cary is as a rule very helpful. :)
Yep. Perhaps it would be an idea to close VolCo may have ears, perhaps on Community portal or somewhere. Still i suspect it would be just okay to recommend people to post foundation-l (if they speak English, specially).
Cheers,
On Jan 9, 2008 9:58 PM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
In general, if you have not got into an organization, you may miss even the possibility there would be several contact points. If my washing machine broke (and alas it is really broken), I don't try to find who is the best contact, but simply call one sole phone number they provide their customers.
Funneling all comments/questions/complaints directly to the board would be a disaster. maybe what's needed is some kind of "contact committee" that could filter out the important stuff from the cruft, and then make certain that the important things are brought to the correct people.
Either that, or we could try to expand OTRS to cover all possible communications to/from the board, although that doesnt seem ideal to me.
--Andrew Whitworth
I don't think OTRS is quite suited for that issue. As a former OTRS volunteer, I can say personally that if OTRS *were* expanded to such a role, they would need additional help. We can't even cut down the backlog on permissions requests (mostly permissions-de...), much less take on the job of coordinating /ALL/ contact between the board and the world.
However, as Florence mentioned, the WikiCouncil is suited to better facilitate this project<->project and board<->all projects communication gap.
Chad
On Jan 9, 2008 10:12 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008 9:58 PM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
In general, if you have not got into an organization, you may miss even the possibility there would be several contact points. If my washing machine broke (and alas it is really broken), I don't try to find who is the best contact, but simply call one sole phone number they provide their customers.
Funneling all comments/questions/complaints directly to the board would be a disaster. maybe what's needed is some kind of "contact committee" that could filter out the important stuff from the cruft, and then make certain that the important things are brought to the correct people.
Either that, or we could try to expand OTRS to cover all possible communications to/from the board, although that doesnt seem ideal to me.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
As I write that, it occurs to me that there isn't even a clear point of contact for project participants who want to contact the Foundation with questions or requests. As far as I know, there is no prominent page anywhere that amounts to "Instructions on Contacting the Foundation for Help", so when "Foundation Issues" come up people are mostly left to guess on what to do. Eventually very experienced hands get a sense of when to A) call the office, B) post to foundation-l, C) email Jimbo/Anthere/Brion, etc., but as far as know there isn't any place that actually tries to explain best practices for interacting with the Foundation.
I would start with the Volunteer Coordinator http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Volunteer_Coordinator, and as a bonus Cary is as a rule very helpful. :)
Actually, we must also realize that many (if not the majority) of the editors of even big wp projects like French, Japanese, or Russian, do not speak English or do not feel themselves confident enough in English. This means that they get all the messages about WMF through their own wp project (through the people who speak both languages, are involved somehow on a broader scope, and just select the material to be translated). For instance, there is no chance they can read this list, possibly they would even never know that the (open) list exists. I just do not see how the volunteer coordinator idea would work for these people. Unless, of course, we find the translators - but then, again, this is not the only point where translators are needed, and I just do not see how this could be done. In the end of the day, participants of even bigger projects feel disconnected from all decisions done at the WMF level, and do not feel like they influenced these decisions at all.
Cheers, Yaroslav
Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
Actually, we must also realize that many (if not the majority) of the editors of even big wp projects like French, Japanese, or Russian, do not speak English or do not feel themselves confident enough in English. This means that they get all the messages about WMF through their own wp project (through the people who speak both languages, are involved somehow on a broader scope, and just select the material to be translated). For instance, there is no chance they can read this list, possibly they would even never know that the (open) list exists. I just do not see how the volunteer coordinator idea would work for these people. Unless, of course, we find the translators - but then, again, this is not the only point where translators are needed, and I just do not see how this could be done. In the end of the day, participants of even bigger projects feel disconnected from all decisions done at the WMF level, and do not feel like they influenced these decisions at all.
Very much so. The United Nations has from the beginning limited its list of official languages. Is the EU any better off if it translates long reports on narrowly focused topics from one obscure language into another? It may not be politically appealing for a Chechen to communicate in Russian, or for a Quechua to communicate in Spanish, but unless the speakers of those languages are able to provide translator services will remain limited. The most we can hope for is service in a limited number of widely used languages, or languages with a high on-line population like Japanese. Maltese may be official in the EU but we can't realistically do anything about that.
Ec
On Jan 14, 2008 7:05 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
Actually, we must also realize that many (if not the majority) of the editors of even big wp projects like French, Japanese, or Russian, do not speak English or do not feel themselves confident enough in English. This means that they get all the messages about WMF through their own wp project (through the people who speak both languages, are involved somehow on a broader scope, and just select the material to be translated). For instance, there is no chance they can read this list, possibly they would even never know that the (open) list exists. I just do not see how the volunteer coordinator idea would work for these people. Unless, of course, we find the translators - but then, again, this is not the only point where translators are needed, and I just do not see how this could be done. In the end of the day, participants of even bigger projects feel disconnected from all decisions done at the WMF level, and do not feel like they influenced these decisions at all.
Very much so. The United Nations has from the beginning limited its list of official languages. Is the EU any better off if it translates long reports on narrowly focused topics from one obscure language into another? It may not be politically appealing for a Chechen to communicate in Russian, or for a Quechua to communicate in Spanish, but unless the speakers of those languages are able to provide translator services will remain limited. The most we can hope for is service in a limited number of widely used languages, or languages with a high on-line population like Japanese. Maltese may be official in the EU but we can't realistically do anything about that.
Exactly. And that is why Transcom set the priorities between targeting languages. Now we are going to make its annual and first update. I am happy to invite you to review the current scheme. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_subcommittees/Trans/core_langs
You are welcome to give an opinion or feedback of our activity on that talk.
I set it mainly to determine which language translation should be taken care to accomplish it with our limited resources (mainly manpower and time). It works like as triage of medical staff in a critical moment. We welcome all languages, but you may agree we need to take first "major" languages on the project (like French) rather than small languages (imagine if there are two unfinished translation of Finnish and Spanish, not related to any specific regional concerns and you can afford only five minutes, which language translator would you like to seek for?).
A slightly off-topic, as for Japanese I would love to add it has a larger native speaking population than German or French according to Ethnologue. (See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers#...)
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 10/01/2008, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
The WMF mostly provides a behind-the-scenes service to keep the servers running, and many people would be perfectly happy if the WMF never, ever got involved in the governance of individual projects. When the WMF does get involved, many participants wonder: "Why are you messing with MY work."
And yet at the same time, the Foundation is also called upon to intervene in many controversies and issues, sometimes appropriately but often inappropriately. For example I have seen several critics of English Wikipedia culture chastise the Foundation for not acting in some way to improve it, but few Wikimedians would consider that appropriate, I think. Also copyright issues. They are a bit damned if they do and damned if they don't.
More than a bit! I think that it reflects a very common human phenomenon. Despite their support for more democratic systems, most people are happier when they are told what to do. For the majority having a template to define a task means that they can feel happy that they are accomplishing something when they fill in the blanks about something within the sense of order that the template provides. For them someone who tinkers with a template in order to "improve" it is a disorienting influence.
For many of us who like to improve things it's hard to imagine why these lumpen masses never want to participate in the cut and thrust of decision making. It can get worse when you consider social, content and technical improvements are often at odds with each other.
When someone asks the Foundation to intervene on a fine point of copyright they are often looking for a simplistic answer to a complex question. In reality that question is as resolvable as the three-body problem in physics. For the most part the WMF's answer should be, "Solve your own damn problems!" Even the WikiCouncil will need to take such a stand if it is to respect the autonomy of the individual projects. Since intervention is exceptional, such exceptions are best to be clearly defined.
BTW I can not think of too many occasions where the Foundation *has* intervened with the governance of individual projects. The only one that comes to mind is the closure of fr.wq and I didn't even see a single person criticise the way that was handled. There was a lot of discussion about the licensing policy but I didn't see anyone suggest that it was inappropriate for the Foundation to do what it did.
I think that much of that has been with an it's-not-my-problem attitude. We can be aware that something is happening in fr.wq or more recently in ru-wb, but even someone who is a frequent contributor to this list limits the topics in which he gets involved. I simply have no basis for judging anyone's actions in those incidents. I can see where establishing how to deal with such matters would come under WikiCouncil's jurisdiction.
Ec
Robert Rohde wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008 3:16 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
I would disagree. In general, many members of the sister projects have a strong sense of disconnect and disenfranchisement when it comes to the WMF. This is especially true of the smaller projects and the smaller non-english projects. The lines of communication are virtually non-existant for these small projects. If it appears that the only time the WMF cares about a small project is when something is wrong and "action" needs to be taken.
<snip>
While it may be worse for small and non-english projects, I think many participants in many of the larger projects also feel disconnected with WMF. Project participants are usually there because they enjoy creating something, but from the point of view of project participants the WMF is almost never directly involved in creating anything. The WMF mostly provides a behind-the-scenes service to keep the servers running, and many people would be perfectly happy if the WMF never, ever got involved in the governance of individual projects. When the WMF does get involved, many participants wonder: "Why are you messing with MY work."
Frankly, the WMF needs better communication all around.
As I write that, it occurs to me that there isn't even a clear point of contact for project participants who want to contact the Foundation with questions or requests. As far as I know, there is no prominent page anywhere that amounts to "Instructions on Contacting the Foundation for Help", so when "Foundation Issues" come up people are mostly left to guess on what to do. Eventually very experienced hands get a sense of when to A) call the office, B) post to foundation-l, C) email Jimbo/Anthere/Brion, etc., but as far as know there isn't any place that actually tries to explain best practices for interacting with the Foundation.
-Robert Rohde
---------> Wikicouncil ?
Ant
(this said, I wish I knew when and why we disappointed Ramir)
Robert Rohde wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008 3:16 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
I would disagree. In general, many members of the sister projects have a strong sense of disconnect and disenfranchisement when it comes to the WMF. This is especially true of the smaller projects and the smaller non-english projects. The lines of communication are virtually non-existant for these small projects. If it appears that the only time the WMF cares about a small project is when something is wrong and "action" needs to be taken.
While it may be worse for small and non-english projects, I think many participants in many of the larger projects also feel disconnected with WMF. Project participants are usually there because they enjoy creating something, but from the point of view of project participants the WMF is almost never directly involved in creating anything. The WMF mostly provides a behind-the-scenes service to keep the servers running, and many people would be perfectly happy if the WMF never, ever got involved in the governance of individual projects. When the WMF does get involved, many participants wonder: "Why are you messing with MY work."
It would be unwieldy for WikiCouncil to have representatives from each and every project, given that in a one-admin project that person may have his hands full just keeping that project going. WikiCouncil will need a ratification policy, even for some of the most obvious policies. If WC (with due note of Jimbo's recent English interview) wants all projects to adopt the Five Pillars it would need to be subject to ratification to avoid the impression that it is nothing more than an en:wp policy being imposed on everyone else.
Ec
On Jan 9, 2008 4:28 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Greg is telling "foundation" people that they need to be transparent with "wiki" people no matter how expensive because "wiki" is the means of the "foundation". Erik replies that his first method of promoting transparency to these people is to promote more of them to volunteer in these issues rather than just comment. Meanwhile, in the ru.WB thread, a "wiki" person explains why he finds "foundation" people to be pesky salesman that would do better to spend their time on wiki work.
I wouldn't read too much into the ravings of a rogue admin - I don't think his views are particularly representative of any significant portion of the community.
This kind of talk isn't at all appropriate. Please keep a civil tongue when discussing issues on any Wikimedia mailing list.
Austin
That is what I thought, actually. Even so, still probably not appropriate for a public Wikimedia list.
Nathan
On Jan 9, 2008 6:34 PM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008 4:28 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Greg is telling "foundation" people that they need to be transparent with "wiki" people no matter how expensive because "wiki" is the means of the "foundation". Erik replies that his first method of promoting transparency to these people is to promote more of them to volunteer in these issues rather than just comment. Meanwhile, in the ru.WB thread, a "wiki" person explains why he finds "foundation" people to be pesky salesman that would do better to spend their time on wiki work.
I wouldn't read too much into the ravings of a rogue admin - I don't think his views are particularly representative of any significant portion of the community.
This kind of talk isn't at all appropriate. Please keep a civil tongue when discussing issues on any Wikimedia mailing list.
Austin
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Jan 10, 2008 7:28 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Greg is telling "foundation" people that they need to be transparent with "wiki" people no matter how expensive because "wiki" is the means of the "foundation". Erik replies that his first method of promoting transparency to these people is to promote more of them to volunteer in these issues rather than just comment. Meanwhile, in the ru.WB thread, a "wiki" person explains why he finds "foundation" people to be pesky salesman that would do better to spend their time on wiki work.
I wouldn't read too much into the ravings of a rogue admin - I don't think his views are particularly representative of any significant portion of the community.
I'm not so much inclined to think Thomas speaks something inappropriate. Rather can we give a look to the mind set of "rogue admin", even if it looks most of us just a rant, what made him think his comparison of "T-shirt company" (of course most of us may reject it, I assume - simply WMF isn't such) would go thorough at least for some people? It may cast a light how an editor in an insular project community may think and perceive what is going on "the project", unless the person who spoke it himself was aware that he said completely inappropriate.
Cheers,
On Jan 9, 2008 1:33 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any way you could merge the counts for people with multiple email addresses? Some way for people to enter addresses into a form to say they are the same person (and some way for others to review it)? For example, the top poster looks like it's actually Anthere, but she posts under both her pseudonym and real name, so Ray ends up being on top.
Using office spreadsheet program I merged: Anthere / Florence Devouard, Anthony / Anthony DiPierro; GerardM / Gerard Meijssen; Jeff V. Merkey / Jeffrey V. Merkey; SJ / Samuel Klein / Sj -- Hope I didn't miss anyone
1 Anthere 1418 2 Ray Saintonge 1096 3 GerardM 892 4 Erik Moeller 878 5 Anthony 832 6 David Gerard 798 7 geni 561 8 Thomas Dalton 540 9 Daniel Mayer 526 10 Jeff V. Merkey 471 11 Gregory Maxwell 435 12 SJ 392 13 Angela 345 14 Delirium 325 15 Jimmy Wales 322 16 Robert Scott Horning 309 17 Andre Engels 254 18 James Hare 253 19 Delphine Ménard 252 20 Brion Vibber 252 21 Andrew Gray 244 22 Birgitte SB 233 23 Aphaia 229 24 Walter van Kalken 217 25 Casey Brown 205 26 Brian McNeil 196 27 daniwo59 at aol.com 194 28 effe iets anders 178 29 Brianna Laugher 178 30 Yann Forget 157 31 Michael Bimmler 154 32 George Herbert 150 33 Michael Snow 150 34 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 145 35 Dan Rosenthal 137 36 Oldak Quill 131 37 Tim Starling 130 38 Mark Williamson 120 39 Andrew Whitworth 114 40 Walter Vermeir 111 41 Cormac Lawler 111 42 Milos Rancic 111 43 Lars Aronsson 109 44 Jean-Baptiste Soufron 104 45 Brad Patrick 103 46 Kelly Martin 100
oh my...
I am first...
(red) ant
Kalan wrote:
2008/1/10, Meno 25 meno25wiki@gmail.com:
Just curious, can you generate the same statistics for all posts to this list (since 2004)?
01 Ray Saintonge 1096 02 Anthere 1070 03 Erik Moeller 878 04 David Gerard 798 05 Anthony 620 06 geni 561 07 Thomas Dalton 540 08 Daniel Mayer 526 09 GerardM 485 10 Gregory Maxwell 435 11 Gerard Meijssen 407 12 Florence Devouard 348 13 Angela 345 14 Delirium 325 15 Jimmy Wales 322 16 Robert Scott Horning 309 17 Andre Engels 254 18 James Hare 253 19 Delphine Ménard 252 19 Brion Vibber 252 21 Jeff V. Merkey 249 22 Andrew Gray 244 23 Birgitte SB 233 24 Aphaia 229 25 Jeffrey V. Merkey 222 26 Walter van Kalken 217 27 Anthony DiPierro 212 28 Casey Brown 205 29 Brian McNeil 196 30 daniwo59 at aol.com 194 31 effe iets anders 178 32 Brianna Laugher 178 33 Yann Forget 157 34 Michael Bimmler 154 35 George Herbert 150 35 Michael Snow 150 37 SJ 148 38 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 145 39 Dan Rosenthal 137 40 Oldak Quill 131 41 Samuel Klein 130 41 Tim Starling 130 41 Mark Williamson 120 44 Sj 114 44 Andrew Whitworth 114 46 Walter Vermeir 111 46 Cormac Lawler 111 46 Milos Rancic 111 49 Lars Aronsson 109 50 Jean-Baptiste Soufron 104 51 Brad Patrick 103 52 Kelly Martin 100
The code was pretty easy, and if people like this feature, I can make a Toolserver utility for Wikimedia lists basing of that. :)
— Kalan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 09/01/2008, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
oh my...
I am first...
(red) ant
The chair of the foundation sending the most emails to the foundation mailing list - that's a very good sign.
well, she's also been with the foundation for years, so it's not all that surprising. :-)
On Jan 9, 2008 5:30 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/01/2008, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
oh my...
I am first...
(red) ant
The chair of the foundation sending the most emails to the foundation mailing list - that's a very good sign.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--- Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Posts in December to Foundation-l
1 Thomas Dalton - 123 2 Anthony - 70 3 Andrew Whitworth - 64 4 David Gerard - 48 5 Florence Devouard - 47 6 Brian McNeil - 43 7 Nathan Awrich - 36 8 Ray Saintonge - 33 T9 GerardM - 32 T9 Mike Godwin - 32 T9 Erik Moeller - 32
Ouch! I think that is heavily skewed by one topic, though. Do you have the total number of posts? Would be interesting to see it as a percentage.
I think one reason I sent so many emails (other than just saying a lot, of course), is that when I'm replying to 3 people I'll send 3 emails. I've seen that other people prefer to do compilation emails replying to everyone at once. Should I switch to doing that?
You also have to factor in the need to reply to post count posts explaining why it is that you have so many posts, which of course, generates more posts. :)
-Gurch
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org